I believe world war 3 will destroy the world first, before the earthquake destroys the world. Because world war 3 involves everyone in the entire world. The earthquake involves the entire world too. But world war 3 has a lot of weapons involved and a lot of people involved...... World ear 3 will bring everything and everyone into chaos........

Thank you for creating this debate. This is my first ever for this site, and feel excited to start participating in the discussions.
Before we start, I have 2 points I'd like to address.
(1)The first is the argument you gave is a logical fallacy of Limited Choice (False Dichotomy)[1]
(2)The second is more for clarification of your previous argument. What earthquake are you referring to? What do mean by "destroys the world"; like obliterates it into stardust, be made inhospitable, or something else?
No matter the clarification, I promise to continue the debate and argue how world war 3 won't be what "destroys the planet"

Really? Cool.
Ok one, really and what do you mean?
2. I mean like if world war 3 happens before the earthquake, it would put the world into chaos. Everyone would be at each others throat. World war 3 would bring chaos and disaster to the entire world. Also I mean the big earthquake, the one that people say is going to happen soon.

It could be argued that the world is already in World War 3 with the idea of things like the war on terror. The war on Terror actually has no real definitive "enemy" yet the US alone has several military operations going on all over the world in order to combat the blow back of its previous mistakes. In the united states, Congress has yet to actually delare any wars in quite a while including, but not limited to, the "Iraq war", "Afghanistan war", and"war of viatnome". Despite this the world doesn't seem to be plunged into chaos or destroyed [1]

I tried to find the earthquake that is "...the big earthquake, the one that people say is going to happen soon.", and couldn't find anything. But I would say
[1] http://www.mintpressnews.com...

Earthquake: a sudden and violent shaking of the ground, sometimes causing great destruction, as a result of movements within the earth's crust or volcanic action.

Exist: have objective being or reality

Destroy: put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it

Destruction: the action or process of causing so much damage to something that it no longer exists or cannot be repaired

Repair: fix or mend (a thing suffering from damage or a fault)

Restore: return (someone or something) to a former condition, place, or position

Technically speaking, neither could 'destroy' the earth because it would still exist in the aftermath. The human race has not developed anything so powerful that it could literally erase Earth's existence, nor would we risk the obliteration of our own kind. Earthquakes are an effect of the movements of faults that are pressured by outer layers. It is not the beginning cause of the vibration of the Earth's crust, so it therefore cannot be blamed upon the destruction of it. Earth cannot be 'repaired', however it can be restored or rejuvenated through nature.

Earth exists in the mental and physical realm. The name 'Earth' is the mental half. If we believe in our minds that Earth exists, it does. The planet itself is the physical half. This is how it is perceived with the 5 senses. You would have to erase the existence of every living thing that knows off this planet and the planet itself for it to be nonexistent. Earthquakes could obliterate all life-forms, however it could not destroy the planet completely. Humans (W.W.III.) are part of the mental half (there are also other life-forms like animals for example) so if we tried to destroy the existence of earth. we'd also have to annihilate ourselves in the process.

Um...well, now I kind of know what you mean when you said, "logical fallacy of Limited Choice (False Dichotomy)[1]. "
But, I don't like all the fighting. I appreciate what people are doing, I just don't want to see anyone die, or/and get hurt.